| Rfc | 5365 |
|---|
| Title | Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE Requests in the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) |
|---|
| Author | M. Garcia-Martin, G. Camarillo |
|---|
| Date | October 2008 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|---|
|
Network Working Group M. Garcia-Martin
Request for Comments: 5365 G. Camarillo
Category: Standards Track Ericsson
October 2008
Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE Requests in
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document specifies a mechanism that allows a SIP User Agent
Client (UAC) to send a SIP MESSAGE request to a set of destinations,
by using a SIP URI-list (Uniform Resource Identifier list) service.
The UAC sends a SIP MESSAGE request that includes the payload along
with the URI list to the MESSAGE URI-list service, which sends a
MESSAGE request including the payload to each of the URIs included in
the list.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. URI-List Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Option-Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Procedures at the User Agent Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Procedures at the MESSAGE URI-List Service . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Determining the Intended Recipient . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Creating an Outgoing MESSAGE Request . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.3. Composing Bodies in the Outgoing MESSAGE Request . . . . . 10
8. Procedures at the UAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
RFC 3261 (SIP) [RFC3261] is extended by RFC 3248 [RFC3428] to carry
instant messages in MESSAGE requests. SIP-based messaging, as
described in RFC 3428 [RFC3428], does not provide a mechanism to send
the same request to multiple recipients or replying to all recipients
of a SIP MESSAGE request. This memo addresses these functions.
A first requirement can be expressed as:
REQ-1: It must be possible for a user to send an instant message
request to an ad hoc group, where the identities of the recipients
are carried in the message itself.
One possibility to fulfill the above requirement is to establish a
session of instant messages with an instant messaging conference
server, and exchange the messages, for example, using MSRP (Message
Session Relay Protocol) [RFC4975]. While this option seems to be
reasonable in many cases, in other situations the sending user just
wants to send a small pager-mode instant message to an ad hoc group
without the burden of setting up a session. This document focuses on
sending a pager-mode instant message to a number of intended
recipients.
To meet the requirement with a pager-mode instant message, we allow
SIP MESSAGE requests carry recipient-list bodies, i.e., URI lists in
body parts whose Content-Disposition (RFC 2183) [RFC2183] is
'recipient-list', as specified in RFC 5363 [RFC5363]. A SIP MESSAGE
URI-list service, which is a specialized application service,
receives the request and sends a MESSAGE request including the
received payload to each of the URIs in the list. Each of these
MESSAGE requests contains a copy of the body included in the original
MESSAGE request.
A second requirement addresses the "Reply-To-All" functionality:
REQ-2: It MUST be possible for the recipient of a group instant
message to send a message to all other participants that received
the same group instant message (i.e., Reply-To-All).
To meet this requirement, we provide a mechanism whereby the MESSAGE
URI-list service also includes a URI list in body parts whose
Content-Disposition (RFC 2183) [RFC2183] is 'recipient-list-history',
as specified in RFC 5364 [RFC5364]. The 'recipient-list-history'
body is sent along with the instant message payload in each of the
instant messages sent to the recipients.
The User Agent Client (UAC) that sends a MESSAGE request to a MESSAGE
URI-list service needs to be configured with the SIP URI of the
service that provides the functionality. Discovering and
provisioning of this URI to the UAC is outside the scope of this
document.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant
implementations.
This document reuses the following terminology defined in RFC 3261
[RFC3261]:
o Address-of-Record (AOR)
o User Agent (UA)
o User Agent Client (UAC)
o User Agent Server (UAS)
This document defines the following new terms:
MESSAGE URI-list service: A specialized URI-list service that
receives a MESSAGE request with a URI list and sends a similar
MESSAGE request to each URI in the list. In this context, similar
indicates that some SIP header fields can change, but the MESSAGE
URI-list service will not change the instant message payload.
MESSAGE URI-list services behave effectively as specialized B2BUAs
(Back-to-Back-User-Agents). A server providing MESSAGE URI-list
services can also offer URI-list services for other methods,
although this functionality is outside the scope of this document.
In this document, we only discuss MESSAGE URI-list services.
Incoming MESSAGE request: A SIP MESSAGE request that a UAC creates
and addresses to a MESSAGE URI-list service. Besides the regular
instant message payload, an incoming MESSAGE request contains a
URI list.
Outgoing MESSAGE request: A SIP MESSAGE request that a MESSAGE URI-
list service creates and addresses to a UAS (User Agent Server).
It contains the regular instant message payload.
Intended recipient: The intended final recipient of the request to
be generated by MESSAGE URI-list service.
Reply-To-All: The ability of an intended recipient to receive a
MESSAGE request that includes the payload and the list of
recipients, and compose and send a MESSAGE request to the sender
and the rest of the recipients. The replying entity can use a
MESSAGE URI-list service if one is at its disposal or can create a
sequence of regular single-recipient MESSAGE requests to each SIP
AOR.
3. Overview
A UAC creates a MESSAGE request that contains a multipart body
including a list of URIs (intended recipients) and an instant
message. The list of URIs is formatted according to the resource
list document format specified in RFC 4826 [RFC4826] and extended
with the attributes defined in RFC 5364 [RFC5364]. The UAC sends
this MESSAGE request to the MESSAGE URI-list service. On reception
of this incoming MESSAGE request, the MESSAGE URI-list service
creates a MESSAGE request per intended recipient (listed in the URI
list) and copies the instant message payload to each of those
MESSAGES. The MESSAGE URI-list service also manipulates the XML
resource list according to the procedures indicated in RFC 5364
[RFC5364], and attaches the result to each of the MESSAGE requests,
along with the instant message payload. Then the MESSAGE URI-list
service sends each of the created outgoing MESSAGE request to the
respective receiver.
The MESSAGE URI-list mechanism allows a sender to specify multiple
targets for a MESSAGE request by including an XML resource list
document according to RFC 4826 [RFC4826] in the body of the MESSAGE
request extended with the attributes defined in RFC 5364 [RFC5364].
This resource list, whose Content-Disposition (RFC 2183) [RFC2183] is
'recipient-list', as specified in RFC 5363 [RFC5363], includes the
URIs of the targets. Each target URI may also be marked to indicate
in what role the URI-list service will place the target (e.g., "to",
"cc", or "bcc"), and whether the target URI is expected to be
anonymized or not, according to the procedures described in RFC 5364
[RFC5364]. When the MESSAGE URI-list server expands the MESSAGE
request to each recipient, it includes (along with the instant
message payload) a new URI list (based on the received one), whose
Content-Disposition (RFC 2183) [RFC2183] is 'recipient-list-history',
as specified in RFC 5364 [RFC5364]. This new URI list includes the
list of non-anonymous "to" and "cc" targets, allowing recipients both
to get knowledge of other recipients and to reply to them.
4. URI-List Document
As described in RFC 5363 [RFC5363], specifications of individual URI-
list services, like the MESSAGE URI-list service described here, need
to specify a default format for 'recipient-list' bodies used within
the particular service.
The default format for 'recipient-list' bodies for MESSAGE URI-list
services is the resource list document specified in RFC 4826
[RFC4826] extended with the copy control attributes [RFC5364]. UACs
and MESSAGE URI-list services handling 'recipient-list' bodies MUST
support both of these formats and MAY support other formats.
As described in RFC 5364 [RFC5364], each URI can be tagged with a
'copyControl' attribute set to either "to", "cc", or "bcc",
indicating the role in which the recipient will get the MESSAGE
request. Additionally, URIs can be tagged with the 'anonymize'
attribute to prevent that the MESSAGE URI-list server discloses the
target URI in a URI list.
Additionally, RFC 5364 [RFC5364] defines a 'recipient-list-history'
body that contains the list of intended recipients. The default
format for 'recipient-list-history' bodies for MESSAGE URI-list
services is also the resource list document specified in RFC 4826
[RFC4826] extended with the copy control attributes [RFC5364].
MESSAGE URI-list services MUST support both of these formats; UASs
MAY support these formats. MESSAGE URI-list servers and UASs MAY
support other formats.
The resource list document specified in RFC 4826 [RFC4826] provides a
number of features that are not needed by the MESSAGE URI-list
service defined in this document. The MESSAGE URI-list service needs
to transfer a simple flat list of URIs between a UAC and the MESSAGE
URI-list server and between the MESSAGE URI-list server and the UAS.
The service does not need hierarchical lists or the ability to
include entries by reference relative to the Extensible Configuration
Access Protocol (XCAP) [RFC4825] root URI. Therefore, the MESSAGE
URI-list service specified herein only uses flat resource lists
documents that do not contain relative references.
5. Option-Tag
This document defines the 'recipient-list-message' option-tag for use
in the Require and Supported SIP header fields.
This option-tag is used to ensure that a server can process the
'recipient-list' body used in a MESSAGE request. It also provides
a mechanism to discover the capability of the server in responses
to OPTIONS requests.
Section 6 provides normative procedures for the usage of this option
tag.
6. Procedures at the User Agent Client
A UAC that wants to create a multiple-recipient MESSAGE request
creates a MESSAGE request that MUST be formatted according to RFC
3428 [RFC3428] Section 4. The UAC populates the Request-URI with the
SIP or SIPS URI of the MESSAGE URI-list service. In addition to the
regular instant message body, the UAC adds a recipient-list body
whose Content-Disposition type is 'recipient-list', specified in RFC
5363 [RFC5363]. This body contains a URI list with the recipients of
the MESSAGE. Target URIs in this body MAY also be tagged with the
'copyControl' and 'anonymize' attributes specified in RFC 5364
[RFC5364]. The UAC MUST also include the 'recipient-list-message'
option-tag, defined in Section 5, in a Require header field.
UACs generating MESSAGE requests that carry recipient-list bodies, as
described in previous sections, MUST include this option-tag in a
Require header field. UAs that are able to receive and process
MESSAGEs with a recipient-list body, as described in previous
sections, SHOULD include this option-tag in a Supported header field
when responding to OPTIONS requests.
Multiple-recipient MESSAGE requests contain a multipart body that
contains the body carrying the list and the actual instant message
payload. In some cases, the MESSAGE request can contain bodies other
than the text and the list bodies (e.g., when the request is
protected with S/MIME as per RFC 3851 [RFC3851]).
Typically, the MESSAGE URI-list service will copy all the significant
header fields in the outgoing MESSAGE request. However, there might
be cases where the SIP UA wants the MESSAGE URI-list service to add a
particular header field with a particular value, even if the header
field wasn't present in the MESSAGE request sent by the UAC. In this
case, the UAC MAY use the "?" mechanism described in Section 19.1.1
of RFC 3261 [RFC3261] to encode extra information in any URI in the
list. However, the UAC MUST NOT use the special "body" hname (see
Section 19.1.1 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261]) to encode a body, since the
body is present in the MESSAGE request itself.
The following is an example of a URI that uses the "?" mechanism:
sip:bob@example.com?Accept-Contact=*%3bmobility%3d%22mobile%22
The previous URI requests the MESSAGE URI-list service to add the
following header field to a MESSAGE request to be sent to
bob@example.com:
Accept-Contact: *;mobility="mobile"
The resource list document format specified in RFC 4826 [RFC4826]
provides features, such as hierarchical lists and the ability to
include entries by reference relative to the XCAP root URI. However,
these features are not needed by the multiple MESSAGE URI-list
service defined in this document. Therefore, when using the default
resource list document, UAs SHOULD use flat lists (i.e., no
hierarchical lists) and SHOULD NOT use <entry-ref> elements.
7. Procedures at the MESSAGE URI-List Service
On reception of a MESSAGE request containing a URI list, the MESSAGE
URI-list service answers to the UAC with a 202 (Accepted) response.
Note that the status code in the response to the MESSAGE does not
provide any information about whether or not the MESSAGEs
generated by the URI-list service were successfully delivered to
the URIs in the list. That is, a 202 (Accepted) response means
that the MESSAGE URI-list service has received the MESSAGE and
that it will try to send a similar MESSAGE to the URIs in the
list. Designing a mechanism to inform a client about the delivery
status of an instant message is outside the scope of this
document.
Since the MESSAGE URI-list service does not use hierarchical lists
nor lists that include entries by reference to the XCAP root URI, a
MESSAGE URI-list server receiving a URI list with more information
than what has just been described MAY discard all the extra
information.
If a MESSAGE request contains a Request-URI containing a URI that
uses the "?" mechanism (see Section 19.1.1 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261]) and
such URI contains the special "body" hname to include an additional
body, the MESSAGE URI-list server MAY discard the contents of the
"body" parameter.
7.1. Determining the Intended Recipient
On reception of a MESSAGE request containing a URI list, a MESSAGE
URI-list service determines the list of intended recipients by
inspecting the URI list contained in the body.
Section 4.1 of RFC 5363 [RFC5363] discusses cases when duplicated
URIs are found in a URI list. In order to avoid duplicated requests,
MESSAGE URI-list services MUST take those actions specified in RFC
5363 [RFC5363] into account to avoid sending duplicated requests to
the same recipient.
7.2. Creating an Outgoing MESSAGE Request
Since the MESSAGE URI-list service behaves as a UAC for outgoing
MESSAGE requests, for each of the intended recipients, the MESSAGE
URI-list service creates a new MESSAGE request according to the
procedures described in Section 4 of RFC 3428 [RFC3428].
Additionally, Section 5.3 of RFC 5363 [RFC5363] provides additional
general guidance in creating outgoing requests. This document also
specifies the following procedures:
o A MESSAGE URI-list service MUST include a From header field whose
value is the same as the From header field included in the
incoming MESSAGE request, subject to the privacy requirements (see
RFC 3323 [RFC3323] and RFC 3325 [RFC3325]) expressed in the
incoming MESSAGE request.
Note that this does not apply to the "tag" parameter.
Failure to copy the From header field of the sender results in
unacceptable security and privacy failures. Note also that
this requirement does not intend to contradict requirements for
additional services running on the same physical node.
Specifically, a privacy service (see RFC 3323 [RFC3323]) can be
co-located with the MESSAGE URI-list service, in which case,
the privacy service has precedence over the MESSAGE URI-list
service.
o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD generate a new To header field
value set to the intended recipient's URI. According to the
procedures of RFC 3261 [RFC3261] Section 8.1.1.1, this value is
also expected to be equal to the Request-URI of the outgoing
MESSAGE request.
The MESSAGE URI-list service behaves as a User Agent Client;
thus, the To header field should be populated with the
recipient's URI.
o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD create a new Call-ID header
field value.
A Call-ID header field might contain addressing information
that the sender wants to remain private. Since there is no
need to keep the same Call-ID on both sides of the MESSAGE URI-
list service, and since the MESSAGE URI-list service behaves as
a User Agent Client, it is recommended to create a new Call-ID
header field value according to the regular SIP procedures.
o If a P-Asserted-Identity header field was present in the incoming
MESSAGE request and the request was received from a trusted
source, as specified in RFC 3325 [RFC3325], and the first hop of
the outgoing MESSAGE request is also trusted, a MESSAGE URI-list
service MUST include a P-Asserted-Identity header field in the
outgoing MESSAGE request with the same received value. However,
if the first hop of the outgoing MESSAGE request is not trusted
and the incoming MESSAGE request included a Privacy header field
with a value different than 'none', the MESSAGE URI-list service
MUST NOT include a P-Asserted-Identity header field in the
outgoing MESSAGE request.
o If a MESSAGE URI-list service is able to assert the identity of a
user (e.g., using HTTP Digest authentication scheme as per RFC
2617 [RFC2617], S/MIME as per RFC 3851 [RFC3851], etc.) and the
service implements a mechanism where it can map that
authentication scheme to a user's SIP or SIPS URI, and subject to
the privacy requirements expressed in the incoming MESSAGE request
(see RFC 3323 [RFC3323]), the MESSAGE URI-list service MAY insert
a P-Asserted-Identity header with the value of the user's asserted
URI.
o If the incoming MESSAGE request contains an Authorization or
Proxy-Authorization header field whose realm is set to the MESSAGE
URI-list server's realm, then the MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD
NOT copy it to the outgoing MESSAGE request; otherwise (i.e., if
the Authorization or Proxy-Authorization header field of incoming
MESSAGE request contains a different realm), the MESSAGE URI-list
service MUST copy the value to the respective header field of the
outgoing MESSAGE request.
o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD create a separate count for the
CSeq header field [RFC3261] of the outgoing MESSAGE request.
o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD initialize the value of the Max-
Forward header field of the outgoing MESSAGE request.
o A MESSAGE URI-list service MUST include its own value in the Via
header field.
7.3. Composing Bodies in the Outgoing MESSAGE Request
When creating the body of each of the outgoing MESSAGE requests, the
MESSAGE URI-list service keeps the relevant bodies of the incoming
MESSAGE request and copies them to the outgoing MESSAGE request. The
following guidelines constitute exceptions to the general body
handling:
o A MESSAGE request received at a MESSAGE URI-list service can
contain one or more security bodies (e.g., S/MIME, RFC 3851
[RFC3851]) encrypted with the public key of the MESSAGE URI-list
service. These bodies are deemed to be read by the URI-list
service rather than the recipient of the outgoing MESSAGE request
(which will not be able to decrypt them). Therefore, a MESSAGE
URI-list service MUST NOT copy any security body (such as an
S/MIME as per RFC 3851 [RFC3851] encrypted body) addressed to the
MESSAGE URI-list service to the outgoing MESSAGE request. This
includes bodies encrypted with the public key of the URI-list
service.
o The incoming MESSAGE request typically contains a recipient-list
body or reference, as indicated in RFC 5363 [RFC5363] with the
actual list of recipients. If this URI list includes resources
tagged with the 'copyControl' attribute set to a value of "to" or
"cc", the URI-list service SHOULD include a URI list in each of
the outgoing MESSAGE requests. This list SHOULD be formatted
according to the resource list document format specified in RFC
4826 [RFC4826] and the copyControl extension specified in RFC 5364
[RFC5364]. The MESSAGE URI-list service MUST follow the
procedures specified in RFC 5364 [RFC5364] with respect to
handling of the 'anonymize', 'count', and 'copyControl'
attributes.
o If the MESSAGE URI-list service includes a URI list in an outgoing
MESSAGE request, it MUST include a Content-Disposition header
field as per RFC 2183 [RFC2183] with the value set to 'recipient-
list-history' and a "handling" parameter as per RFC 3204 [RFC3204]
set to "optional".
o If a MESSAGE URI-list service includes a URI list in an outgoing
MESSAGE request, it SHOULD use S/MIME (RFC 3851) [RFC3851] to
encrypt the URI list with the public key of the receiver.
o The MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD copy all the remaining message
bodies (e.g., text messages, images, etc.) of the incoming MESSAGE
request to the outgoing MESSAGE request.
o If there is only one body left, the MESSAGE URI-list service MUST
remove the multipart/mixed wrapper in the outgoing MESSAGE
request.
The rest of the MESSAGE request corresponding to a given URI in the
URI list MUST be created following the rules in Section 19.1.5,
"Forming Requests from a URI", of RFC 3261 [RFC3261]. In particular,
Section 19.1.5 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261] states:
"An implementation SHOULD treat the presence of any headers or
body parts in the URI as a desire to include them in the message,
and choose to honor the request on a per-component basis."
SIP allows to append a "method" parameter to a URI. Therefore, it is
legitimate that the 'uri' attribute of the <entry> element in the XML
resource list contains a "method" parameter. MESSAGE URI-list
services MUST generate only MESSAGE requests, regardless of the
"method" parameter that the URIs in the list indicate. Effectively,
MESSAGE URI-list services MUST ignore the "method" parameter in each
of the URIs present in the URI list.
8. Procedures at the UAS
A UAS (in this specification, also known as intended recipient UAS)
that receives a MESSAGE request from the MESSAGE URI-list service
behaves as specified in RFC 3428 [RFC3428] Section 7.
If the UAS supports this specification and the MESSAGE request
contains a body with a Content-Disposition header field as per RFC
2183 [RFC2183] set to 'recipient-list-history', then the UAS will be
able to determine the SIP Address-of-Record (AOR) of the other
intended recipients of the MESSAGE request. This allows the user to
create a reply request (e.g., MESSAGE, INVITE) to the sender and the
rest of the recipients included in the URI list.
9. Examples
Figure 1 shows an example of operation. A SIP UAC issuer sends a
MESSAGE request. The MESSAGE URI-list service answers with a 202
(Accepted) response and sends a MESSAGE request to each of the
intended recipients.
+--------+ +---------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
|SIP UAC | | MESSAGE | |intended| |intended| |intended|
| issuer | | URI-list| | recip. | | recip. | | recip. |
| | | service | | 1 | | 2 | | n |
+--------+ +---------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| | | | |
| F1 MESSAGE | | | |
| ---------------->| | | |
| F2 202 Accepted | | | |
|<---------------- | F3 MESSAGE | | |
| | ------------->| | |
| | F4 MESSAGE | | |
| | ------------------------>| |
| | F5 MESSAGE | | |
| | ----------------------------------->|
| | F6 200 OK | | |
| |<------------- | | |
| | F7 200 OK | | |
| |<------------------------ | |
| | F8 200 OK | | |
| |<----------------------------------- |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Figure 1: Example of operation
The MESSAGE request F1 (shown in Figure 2) contains a multipart/mixed
body that is composed of two bodies: a text/plain body containing the
instant message payload and an application/resource-lists+xml body
containing the list of recipients.
MESSAGE sip:list-service.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP uac.example.com
;branch=z9hG4bKhjhs8ass83
Max-Forwards: 70
To: MESSAGE URI-list service <sip:list-service.example.com>
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>;tag=32331
Call-ID: d432fa84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
Require: recipient-list-message
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="boundary1"
Content-Length: 501
--boundary1
Content-Type: text/plain
Hello World!
--boundary1
Content-Type: application/resource-lists+xml
Content-Disposition: recipient-list
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:copycontrol">
<list>
<entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:copyControl="to" />
<entry uri="sip:randy@example.net" cp:copyControl="to"
cp:anonymize="true"/>
<entry uri="sip:eddy@example.com" cp:copyControl="to"
cp:anonymize="true"/>
<entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:copyControl="cc" />
<entry uri="sip:carol@example.net" cp:copyControl="cc"
cp:anonymize="true"/>
<entry uri="sip:ted@example.net" cp:copyControl="bcc" />
<entry uri="sip:andy@example.com" cp:copyControl="bcc" />
</list>
</resource-lists>
--boundary1--
Figure 2: MESSAGE request received at the MESSAGE URI-list server
The MESSAGE requests F3, F4, and F5 are similar in nature. All those
MESSAGE requests contain a multipart/mixed body that is composed of
two other bodies: a text/plain body containing the instant message
payload and an application/resource-lists+xml containing the list of
recipients. Unlike the text/plain body, the application/
resource-lists+xml bodies of MESSAGE requests F3, F4, and F5 are not
equal to the application/resource-lists+xml body included in the
incoming MESSAGE request F1. This is because the URI-list service
has anonymized those URIs tagged with the 'anonymize' attribute and
has removed those URIs tagged with a "bcc" 'copyControl' attribute;
besides, the content disposition of these bodies is different.
Figure 3 shows an example of the MESSAGE request F3.
MESSAGE sip:bill@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP list-service.example.com
;branch=z9hG4bKhjhs8as34sc
Max-Forwards: 70
To: <sip:bill@example.com>
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>;tag=210342
Call-ID: 39s02sdsl20d9sj2l
CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="boundary1"
Content-Length: 501
--boundary1
Content-Type: text/plain
Hello World!
--boundary1
Content-Type: application/resource-lists+xml
Content-Disposition: recipient-list-history; handling=optional
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:copycontrol">
<list>
<entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:copyControl="to" />
<entry uri="sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid" cp:copyControl="to"
cp:count="2"/>
<entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:copyControl="cc" />
<entry uri="sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid" cp:copyControl="cc"
cp:count="1"/>
</list>
</resource-lists>
--boundary1--
Figure 3: MESSAGE request sent by the MESSAGE URI-list server
10. Security Considerations
RFC 5363 [RFC5363] discusses issues related to SIP URI-list services.
Implementations of MESSAGE URI-list services MUST follow the
security-related rules in RFC 5363 [RFC5363]. These rules include
opt-in lists and mandatory authentication and authorization of
clients.
If the contents of the instant message needs to be kept private, the
User Agent Client SHOULD use S/MIME as per RFC 3851 [RFC3851] to
prevent a third party from viewing this information. In this case,
the user agent client SHOULD encrypt the instant message body with a
content encryption key. Then, for each receiver in the list, the UAC
SHOULD encrypt the content encryption key with the public key of the
receiver, and attach it to the MESSAGE request.
11. IANA Considerations
This document defines the SIP option tag 'recipient-list-message'
The following row has been added to the "Option Tags" section of the
SIP Parameter Registry:
+------------------------+------------------------------+-----------+
| Name | Description | Reference |
+------------------------+------------------------------+-----------+
| recipient-list-message | The body contains a list of | [RFC5365] |
| | URIs that indicates the | |
| | recipients of the SIP | |
| | MESSAGE request | |
+------------------------+------------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: Registration of the 'recipient-list-message' Option-Tag
in SIP
12. Acknowledgements
Duncan Mills supported the idea of having 1 to n MESSAGEs. Ben
Campbell, Paul Kyzivat, Cullen Jennings, Jonathan Rosenberg, Dean
Willis, and Keith Drage provided helpful comments.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2183] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating
Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997.
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
RFC 2617, June 1999.
[RFC3204] Zimmerer, E., Peterson, J., Vemuri, A., Ong, L., Audet,
F., Watson, M., and M. Zonoun, "MIME media types for ISUP
and QSIG Objects", RFC 3204, December 2001.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC3323] Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002.
[RFC3325] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private
Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for
Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325,
November 2002.
[RFC3428] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C.,
and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension
for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.
[RFC3851] Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification",
RFC 3851, July 2004.
[RFC4826] Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats
for Representing Resource Lists", RFC 4826, May 2007.
[RFC5363] Camarillo, G. and A.B. Roach, "Framework and Security
Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) URI-
List Services", RFC 5363, October 2008.
[RFC5364] Garcia-Martin, M. and G. Camarillo, "Extensible Markup
Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy
Control Attributes in Resource Lists", RFC 5364,
October 2008.
13.2. Informative References
[RFC4825] Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML)
Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", RFC 4825, May 2007.
[RFC4975] Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message
Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007.
Authors' Addresses
Miguel A. Garcia-Martin
Ericsson
Via de los Poblados 13
Madrid 28033
Spain
EMail: miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com
Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.